My Beef with Social Skills

[WayneLigon]

I've heard the arguement that social skills are there to let players who are not the most socially graceful people on the planet emulate, systematically, someone who is. That doesn't hold any water with me.

That's still the main reason they exist, I would think. And I've never seen or heard of a group that did the 'we have one guy speak for us' thing; in every game I've ever seen, everyone speaks for their character. So the various social skills are very useful for someone if they don't have the inclination or ability to properly RP the character. If they do roleplay the conversation or attempt, I give bonuses to the roll or forgo it entirely.

Of course, I do let Diplomacy affect PC's; what's good for the NPC's is good for the PC's. They can be bluffed, diplomacied, intimidated and all the rest.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I figure I should be allowed some pimpage here since I wrote a short PDF specifically addressing some of the issues mentioned in this thread:

Skill Focus: Talking

My goal was to create a small collection of special actions that one could take while roleplaying out a scene -- these actions wouldn't replace the in-character roleplaying, but would augment one's roleplaying. Ideally, making it as if the player were as silver-tongued as their character.

I don't expect these new rules to replace all the normal social skill uses--sometimes you just want to make a quick Bluff check--but I think they work pretty nicely as a balance between letting the player roleplay, and the character's abilities have an impact.

 

[MerricB]

Living Greyhawk adventures frequently use an investigative framework that makes plenty of use of Gather Information, Intimidate and Diplomacy. I can say from my experiences with my group, you still need a lot of player skill there.

One of those skills may give you one bit of information, but to *use* that information is another thing entirely.

If the players receive a clue about the suspicious activities of the Court Wizard and then don't follow it up, then they're likely to miss things. I see the social skills as being used for more specific circumstances than just "tell me everything" skills.

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

Merric brings up an excellent point I think.

Frequently the social skills get ignored by players and DM's because the DM designs adventures assuming that social skills will be ignored. How many people set information gathering DC's for example?

The mileage you get out of the social skills I think is directly proportional to the amount of gas you put into them.

For many groups, it just isn't worth the bother. And that's fine. My group works like that. But, I could see how other groups, particularly in long standing campaigns where the DM has such a wealth of information to draw upon, then social skills could really be put to good use.

 

[rounser]

I'm somewhat surprised that no-one's mentioned the existence of the mental attributes; intelligence, wisdom and charisma. We're happy that a character's theoretical smarts are represented by a number, nevermind that in actual play the less-mentally-endowed player does all sorts of dumb and foolish with his high level wizard or cleric?

 

[Dagger of Lath]

Mike Mearls, and many other designers and commentators aside, have complained frequently about what he describes as "Mother May I" abilities.

Sidenote: If a player has the power to fight orcs then he has voted for there to be orcs in the game. A decent GM will chuck in orcs. Likewise a GM can tell players "This is going to be an orc-fighting game, make the preperations you need". Doesn't always have to be so cloak and dagger.

To me, the social skills describe the opposite affect. I think I'll call them "Baby Please!" abilities, which is cry of the hearts of DMs who've just watched their role-playing scene, encounter, or potentially their story go down the drain due to one stinking skill check.

This can only happen if the player suddenly levels up or brings in a new character to gain a skill where it wasn't there before. Look at the character sheets before the game and go "So who's got what skills here?". Design the adventure for those skills to come in handy.

Then don't use the skills as a 100% substitute for roleplaying.

Gather information, on a successful check, lets the player determine who they have to talk to in order to get the extra information. Most adventures have an extra bit of information that makes it easier. Robbing the countess de la marches can be done without knowing that she's a vampire, but it's easier with that extra information. On a successful gather info check, the player's told "Gingolan, the bartender at the gathered grape is rumoured to know a lot of the countess' secrets". Then getting that info out of Gingolan requires roleplaying through the conversation.

Sense Motive, again, give the extra information. "Gingolan, though he claims not to know anything about the countess is looking scared.", gives them the extra information they need to go back into the conversation and get what they need.

Bluff, firstly a successful bluff skill can only make them believe what you say. It's still up to the player to decide what lie to tell. That lie may, or may not, be the one that would get them out of trouble. You may convince the thieves' guild thugs that you work for the local crime boss, but if they're actually underagent crown guard then your bluff skill won't matter. This means sense motive and bluff combine nicely together, sense motive gives you some information to use and an intelligent player can funnel that info into the right lie for their bluff skill.

Intimidate, is the skill to be more intimidating than you should be. Judi Dench probably couldn't beat me up, but she has the social skills to make that irrelevant. Being intimidating while a 10' tall ogre with a massive greatsword can be taken for granted. But a halfling chained to a wall about to be tortured, might be able to use the intimidate skill to convince the torturer to back down.

Diplomacy, needs to be remembered that it has its limits. A male channeler could try to charm a whitecloak with diplomacy, but that whitecloak probably isn't interested in being friends. I rule that diplomacy can only be used if the other person is willing to have a conversation with you, and that people of good alignment can still fight evil people that are charming whilst evil aligned people may have no objection to robbing people they like.

In the end, rules exist to serve the game, most notably in places where player knowledge will not suffice.

Since I'm not an actor, when I GM I may not perfectly convey the NPC's emotional state and motivations. Sense motive covers the gap between the players experience and the character's. It fills in the descriptions that I don't give, particularly if I've cut down a 2 hour dinner party's conversation to a brief paragraph.

Why not just have the players elect the best spokesmen among them to do that job?

As the best spokesman from our gaming group, I'd like to ask for someone else to have a turn. For once I'd like to not play the bard... (not that it matters since we already use social skills in our games and everyone else can't seem to open their mouths without starting a war).

 

[Elric]

Here's a house rule of mine (for Mutants and Masterminds, but it works equally well for D&D). This doesn't apply to uses of these skills in combat like Feint.

Interaction Skills: You don't roll the influence portions of most interaction skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Info, for example). Instead, I’ll just assume that players take 10 on all influence rolls from interaction skills at all times. Then I’ll assess reasonable circumstance modifiers based on the roleplaying offered by the character. If you come up against a very hard task with an interaction skill you know you can't luck your way through it—you have to role-play it better (though no amount of roleplaying will get you an extra +15 on your check).

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'm somewhat surprised that no-one's mentioned the existence of the mental attributes; intelligence, wisdom and charisma. We're happy that a character's theoretical smarts are represented by a number, nevermind that in actual play the less-mentally-endowed player does all sorts of dumb and foolish with his high level wizard or cleric?

Quite.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Well, the way I see it is...what we got here is a failure to communicate...

I believe that you are looking at the game in one perspective, and the game designers had something else completely different in mind.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the core idea you have for your stance is that all these skills should be replaced with players roleplaying the situation at hand. Having the players roleplaying out a situation is substitute having the roll a die, and use a skill? That players should be forced to ask questions, and roleplay situations out to gather knowledge, or intimidate or whatever...? Yes?

Well, I do believe that you understand what I believe to be the core philosophy in the design of these social skills in the game. I see it as two-fold... or multi-functional. The first is to give a fare and honest arbitration based on a dice roll is one purpose. The second is that if you don't really want to roleplay that out (which some players do), you don't have to, there is a mechanic there to keep things honest and above board.

However, I do give roleplaying situational bonuses. If a player role-plays trying to get information from the bartender...I'll give those players a +2, for the roleplaying effort. After all, it makes the game a little more enjoyable (in my opinion) when players can get into character a little bit. Because in table-top games I've been involved with, players tend not to be as in-character as other forms of roleplaying.

Now, as for DM's not putting the players in situations where they don't use their special abilities all that often... such a cleric that never gets to cast Turn Undead. Or the ranger who doesn't get to fight his favoured foe... Well, I fell that's the job of the DM to look at these things. Tailor adventures and situations towards the players so they get to show off now and then. It's the name of the game.

I like to see campaigns where violence and conflict were averted because of some social skill, such as Diplomacy. But if the fighter getting frustrated. Then there should have been more situations where diplomacy wasn't going to work. The DM should account for player enjoyment and frustration. Again....this goes back to my Limelight Theory. Every player/character should have a chance to bask in the limelight. Perhaps a little bit every game session. Perhaps a lot during the whole adventure. But then make sure everyone gets equal focus and tailoring.

There is nothing in the game that says people can't Houserule new skills like Knowledge: Puzzles/Riddles... Knowledge Symbology... whatever. But the DM should make sure that the skills characters have should be used, and if they can utilize. If a game is such that you have a GM who likes using puzzles and riddles, and you have players who don't like such things, aren't good at such things, and would rather just have some rule determine their success or not... so be it...

Personally, I see puzzles and riddles a meta-challenge myself. Something that the players have to do. If you have a bunch of players not interested in puzzles and riddles, then there is no reason to have them. But having all these rules and mechanics can mediate and resolve lots of situations and conflicts, or you can let more situations be resolved by the players with their own skills of problem-solving and roleplaying/acting. but there is a middle-ground that has to be reached by the game-designers to give their own vision of what they envision what the game should be.

Now, also...let me get this straight... your saying that the information given to the players would be given to them eventually by the DM regardless if they have Gather Information or not? Personally, I've never run things like that. If the players don't bother to get involved with the events around them... if they don't have Gather Information to figure out what they should do... then problems start arising, and sooner or later, the party become swept away with events...

For example... I lay hints that orcs are raiding a nearby village, expecting the Ranger or the Paladin to want to do something about it. If they don't figure out where the orcs are, how strong they are, and eventually deal with this problem. The problem becomes bigger...the orc tribe grows in strength and size. Players still do nothing... orcs ransack towns. Then it becomes a domino chain of events... the local lord has to organize a militia to deal with the orc problems. Party might be gathered up into a press gang... or the party happens upon an orcish raiding party.

I do expect the players, especially experienced ones to pick up on the queues I place in the game, and they build their characters to take advantage of social skills, and to become actively involved, but it the current affairs, or their own character's affairs. If the players want to do nothing and get sweep up into an adventure because they were at the wrong place at the right time...well, that can be arranged too.

But I do agree in one aspect. The game can become choosing the player best suited for the job. After all, that's usually what it's all about... okay... we need to get into the witch's house. We could have someone climb the wall to get to the window to break and enter into the place...or we could have someone attempt to pick the lock on the door...or bash the door down. Oh, we can't break the door down, we have to be quiet? Hmm...climb or open lock... so who's the best person for the job here? Or whatever...

The game has pretty much been designed that the party members have too few skills points/ranks to have a wide range of skills and abilities. Especially if your a class that doesn't get a lot of skill points per level. I totally believe that most characters are totally not skilled enough, not for games where you have social problems/situations that can be resolved with some good planning, thinking and problem-solving that circumvents violence and direct physical conflict. That every class, especially the core classes, specialize/focus their skills and abilities in ways that rarely ever are shared by fellow party members.

 

[Nalfeshnee]

What i do with social skills is RP them first and, depending on the players roleplaying, use a modifier on the subsequent roll (generally Bluff and Diplomacy; Gather Information works fine without the need of too much RP [it would take too long otherwise])

and regarding Sense Motive (along with Use Rope and Knowledge checks) i usually make those rolls for the players myself. A roll of a one would immedeatly tell the player that the check failed, but telling him 'the guard seems to be saying the truth' could mean either a failure or a success and the target is not lying. That seems realistic enough to me.


Also, i dont like the analogy betweent puzzles and diplomacy. A player who is good at solving puzzles is good at solving puzzles. One who has a knack for poleplaying a charismatic character does the same, but the difference is that a puzzle has no will or sentience - if the player can solve it, he solves it. Whereas, if a player can roleplay his character as a persuasive haggler, he can do that, but if he tries it on a construct or an PC with an iron will, he's not going to do anything. Which to me necessitates a skill for Diplomacy (which justifies the level check to oppose it) and no skill for puzzle solving...
Confusing and ill-constructed, i know, but there yo ugo